I'd argue it's way better to give them a platform to vent, so instead of going to the street and killing everyone they post memes and share therapists.
Would I be grossed out? Hell yeah, just like with pedophilia. Would I still think it's a good thing? Absolutely.
It's easy to go with your gut feeling and think you're righteous to follow it. It's always harder to think it through and do and support what's actually right.
A little correction: while some of pedo instances are full of potential child abusers, others are based on non-offending (i.e. stop fucking children ffs) principles.
The latter are actually extremely important since they provide a gateway for otherwise potentially dangeous individuals to gain support and find professional help. Trying to instead blindly seed hatred towards people with any immutable traits is never productive, be it any mental disorder, sexuality, or otherwise, same as race and gender. In this case, it only prevents pedophiles from seeking help, making them more likely to become the child predator type and actually pose danger to kids.
Being a pedophile is not a choice. Being a Nazi or a child abuser are, and those should fuck themselves (but also reconsider what they do and what they believe in).
As a viewer, I do not demand producers to create remakes or enhanced versions. They do it themselves - to take profits off relatively easy work, compared to, you know, producing a new great film or whatnot.
The correct comparison would be me writing a book and selling it, and then writing an appendix to this book and selling it separately with a solid price tag.
If I'm an honest author, I'd post updates freely, so that people who already own the book would have important data and wouldn't use incorrect results from there. It would affect my reputation if I'd do otherwise, too.
In my real case, I can publish an update, and yes, it will be free. This is a standard for scientific articles, open or not, and many even have easy links for version updates, containing all corrections.
And my boss pays me because otherwise I wouldn't be able to produce the first result to begin with.
Also, the very idea of digital media is to be accessible and not transient. You can save and backup data and it will be there, in its original form, forever. Updates in art are entirely optional and often unasked for.
I still don't get where you're going with that. Pointing out that in the past physical media did a little bit of the same, draining fans of money with re-releases that just added what's been cut or were enhanced in other ways? Then that's same as, say, DLCs: a small amount of work draining much more money than it's worth, just as means of squeezing more cash from fans while making the base thing affordable for a wide audience. It's just about maximizing profit way beyond the point of payback. Greed, essentially, and nothing else.
As per How I Met Your Mother, I kinda felt the ending to be somewhat natural, even though it seems like they didn't think it through well to begin with. And yes, it's super cruel to kill Ted's wife - she's extremely nice and suits him better and I get your feelings. But this is also a very logical plot twist, and the ending feels...like it should've been. I just knew it'd end up there.
And as per ethics, everything I produce (I work in scientific field) I hold no rights to, and they either belong to a company, sadly (on one job that actually pays me enough to survive), or are in the public domain (open access scientific articles, available for everyone in full text). I wish it would all be the latter. I do not want to retain copyright on anything I make, and I wish for it in general to be abolished. And until that's not the case, I'm comfortable breaching it forcefully.
So you're saying you want one show, and you pay subscription to see it, but then, if you want to watch it again, you have to pay subscription again, and at that point the "paying subscription for a show" model kinda breaks.
I absolutely didn't get your argument on digital media. Film is not a stage performance - the former is recorded once, the latter needs to be manually recreated every time. Every performance is a lot of labor, and it needs to be paid. Every film view is literally nothing.
And yes, I personally have an ethical system strictly opposed to this, and, really, business/corporate greed in general, and I don't think I'm alone here. And in the digital space, we can pack a punch.
His polarized past allowed him to let opposition fight itself.
His past as a KGB agent led many on the right-wing opposition to claim he is nothing but a relic of the Soviet era, and that his grip on power is a direct result of KGB past, and from that claim that we should not repeat rhe socialist turn or it will be like that forever.
His current leadership in a capitalist country, as well as anti-social policies he took, led many on the Left to claim he's just the servant of the rich.
Thereby both sides of the opposition saw him as an evil...but at the same time they claimed that if the other side of opposition comes to power, it will be no better, if not worse. Divide and conquer.
At some point people will be too afraid to start a debate in the first place, and you'll end up with a circlejerk club.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for the idea of holding super civil debate, but at some point people will - at least unintentionally - use some of that. It might be better to raise a culture of catching them on that - and, potentially, issuing a warning.
While many suppose that majority just moved back, they didn't! Less than half of users actually left Lemmy after an exodus, and now about what, 95% of users?..are actually from there.
I'd argue it's way better to give them a platform to vent, so instead of going to the street and killing everyone they post memes and share therapists.
Would I be grossed out? Hell yeah, just like with pedophilia. Would I still think it's a good thing? Absolutely.
It's easy to go with your gut feeling and think you're righteous to follow it. It's always harder to think it through and do and support what's actually right.